Aucoin v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al

Filing 443

ORDER and REASONS denying without prejudice 348 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/12/2014. (NEF: MAG-5) (cbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHERYL AUCOIN, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-3690

EXXON MOBIL CORP., ET AL

SECTION “N” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS

Presently before the Court is Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation’s second “Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on Punitive Damages” (Rec. Doc. 348). As stated herein, IT IS
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant's right to re-urge
its motion post-trial.
Analysis
Plaintiffs allege personal injuries and damages to property from alleged exposure
to naturally occurring radioactive materials (“NORM”). Specifically, Plaintiffs claim they were
exposed to NORM as a result of crust, known as “scale”, that was removed from used oilfield pipe
sent for cleaning by several oil companies, including Exxon, to various pipe-cleaning contractor
defendants, including Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc. (“ITCO”), who operated facilities in
Louisiana and other states. Plaintiffs are individuals (or their survivors) who worked at the
pipeyards, family members claiming secondary exposure, and persons who lived near the pipeyards.
Plaintiffs seek awards of damages for personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or remediation of
their allegedly contaminated properties. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages.
1

With its present motion for partial summary judgment, Exxon again seeks dismissal
with prejudice of Plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages asserted under now repealed Louisiana
Civil Code article 2315.3. The grounds for the current motion, however, are different from those
previously rejected by the Court. See Rec. Doc. 132. Specifically, Exxon now argues that, by virtue
of the punitive damages awarded in Grefer v. Alpha Technical, 965 So. 2d 511 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/08/07)(Grefer II) and Lester v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 120 So.3d 767, 770 (La. App. 4 Cir. 6/26/13),
these claims should be dismissed, on federal constitutional due process principles, because it has
already been punished at least nine times1 for the same conduct of which Plaintiffs complain.
Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds this issue more
appropriately decided post-trial when the Court will have the benefit of the jury's findings, the
evidence presented at trial, and the current state of the law. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is
denied without prejudice to its right to re-urge its motion post-trial.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of December 2014.

_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge

Clerk to Copy:
Magistrate Judge North

1

Albeit on different grounds, the Louisiana Supreme Court has granted a writ
application relative to a tenth award, in Oleszkowicz v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 129 So.3d 1272 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 12/19/13), writ granted, 138 So.3d 1234, 2014-0256 (La. 5/2/14). Argument, however,
has been limited to the issue of res judicata. See Rec. Doc. 365-1.
2